A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The new 100-400mm seems to work.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 8th 18, 02:33 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,414
Default The new 100-400mm seems to work.

Today in the wind North of San Simeon.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-4HpnjD4/0/9f7b73b9/O/i-4HpnjD4.jpg

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-DptDNMM/0/d66445c3/O/i-DptDNMM.jpg

--

Regards,
Savageduck

  #2  
Old July 8th 18, 07:05 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
John McWilliams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,848
Default The new 100-400mm seems to work.

On 7/7/18 PDT 6:33 PM, Savageduck wrote:
Today in the wind North of San Simeon.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-4HpnjD4/0/9f7b73b9/O/i-4HpnjD4.jpg

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-DptDNMM/0/d66445c3/O/i-DptDNMM.jpg

Oh, yes, indeed!
  #3  
Old July 8th 18, 08:17 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,414
Default The new 100-400mm seems to work.

On Jul 7, 2018, John McWilliams wrote
(in article ):

On 7/7/18 PDT 6:33 PM, Savageduck wrote:
Today in the wind North of San Simeon.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-4HpnjD4/0/9f7b73b9/O/i-4HpnjD4.jpg

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-DptDNMM/0/d66445c3/O/i-DptDNMM.jpg

Oh, yes, indeed!


Thanks.

Here are two mo

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-KDb6FXK/0/e0a99e61/O/i-KDb6FXK.jpg

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-VHS3kWL/0/e44ea180/O/i-VHS3kWL.jpg

--

Regards,
Savageduck

  #4  
Old July 9th 18, 01:35 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Bill W
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,367
Default The new 100-400mm seems to work.

On Sun, 08 Jul 2018 00:17:15 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Jul 7, 2018, John McWilliams wrote
(in article ):

On 7/7/18 PDT 6:33 PM, Savageduck wrote:
Today in the wind North of San Simeon.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-4HpnjD4/0/9f7b73b9/O/i-4HpnjD4.jpg

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-DptDNMM/0/d66445c3/O/i-DptDNMM.jpg

Oh, yes, indeed!


Thanks.

Here are two mo

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-KDb6FXK/0/e0a99e61/O/i-KDb6FXK.jpg

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-VHS3kWL/0/e44ea180/O/i-VHS3kWL.jpg


I'd say that lens was a good investment.
  #5  
Old July 9th 18, 01:50 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,414
Default The new 100-400mm seems to work.

On Jul 8, 2018, Bill W wrote
(in ):

On Sun, 08 Jul 2018 00:17:15 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Jul 7, 2018, John McWilliams wrote
(in article ):

On 7/7/18 PDT 6:33 PM, Savageduck wrote:
Today in the wind North of San Simeon.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-4HpnjD4/0/9f7b73b9/O/i-4HpnjD4.jpg

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-DptDNMM/0/d66445c3/O/i-DptDNMM.jpg
Oh, yes, indeed!


Thanks.

Here are two mo

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-KDb6FXK/0/e0a99e61/O/i-KDb6FXK.jpg

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-VHS3kWL/0/e44ea180/O/i-VHS3kWL.jpg


I'd say that lens was a good investment.


So far I am happy with it. I will probably buy the 1.4TC though the reach I
get now is just fine.
Next I will have to track down an airshow. ;-)

For now here is another of the windsurfer shots:

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-cs5phDS/0/ce74ad5f/O/i-cs5phDS.jpg

--

Regards,
Savageduck

  #6  
Old July 9th 18, 03:00 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,272
Default The new 100-400mm seems to work.

On Sun, 08 Jul 2018 00:17:15 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Jul 7, 2018, John McWilliams wrote
(in article ):

On 7/7/18 PDT 6:33 PM, Savageduck wrote:
Today in the wind North of San Simeon.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-4HpnjD4/0/9f7b73b9/O/i-4HpnjD4.jpg

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-DptDNMM/0/d66445c3/O/i-DptDNMM.jpg

Oh, yes, indeed!


Thanks.

Here are two mo

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-KDb6FXK/0/e0a99e61/O/i-KDb6FXK.jpg

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-VHS3kWL/0/e44ea180/O/i-VHS3kWL.jpg


I don't want to seem difficult - but I guess I am.

There was a time when, if I had submitted those images, as interesting
as they were to me, you would have said harsh words to me about the
fuzziness of the image. It wouldn't have been a personal attack but a
strong criticism. I am particularly thinking of those first
photographs of the Mosquito about which your comments were perfectly
justified.

What I would really like to know is a little more about the
processing, particularly about the extent to which the images were
cropped and what else if anything was done in their processing. I
suspect from their general lack of sharpness and their apparent noise
or graininess that they have been heavily cropped.

I noted from the EXIF that you were using f/8 at 1/500 with a 200 ASA.
Have you tried shots at a higher speed with a lesser f number?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #7  
Old July 9th 18, 03:18 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Alfred Molon[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,170
Default The new 100-400mm seems to work.

In article , Eric Stevens
says...

On Sun, 08 Jul 2018 00:17:15 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Jul 7, 2018, John McWilliams wrote
(in article ):

On 7/7/18 PDT 6:33 PM, Savageduck wrote:
Today in the wind North of San Simeon.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-4HpnjD4/0/9f7b73b9/O/i-4HpnjD4.jpg

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-DptDNMM/0/d66445c3/O/i-DptDNMM.jpg
Oh, yes, indeed!


Thanks.

Here are two mo

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-KDb6FXK/0/e0a99e61/O/i-KDb6FXK.jpg

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-VHS3kWL/0/e44ea180/O/i-VHS3kWL.jpg


I don't want to seem difficult - but I guess I am.

There was a time when, if I had submitted those images, as interesting
as they were to me, you would have said harsh words to me about the
fuzziness of the image. It wouldn't have been a personal attack but a
strong criticism. I am particularly thinking of those first
photographs of the Mosquito about which your comments were perfectly
justified.

What I would really like to know is a little more about the
processing, particularly about the extent to which the images were
cropped and what else if anything was done in their processing. I
suspect from their general lack of sharpness and their apparent noise
or graininess that they have been heavily cropped.

I noted from the EXIF that you were using f/8 at 1/500 with a 200 ASA.
Have you tried shots at a higher speed with a lesser f number?


I was about to ask the same thing, because indeed not all images are
tack sharp.

I also shot windsurfers with the OLympus 75-300 at 300mm (same field of
view as 400mm on APS-C). This is the budget tele lens of Olympus
(inexpensive and relatively lightweight). Of the images I got many were
blurred (perhaps motion blur), a few were quite sharp.

In both cases (Fuji and Olympus) the lack of sharpness could be due to
motion blur and/or imprecise AF (camera not being able to focus
precisely fast enough) - just guessing.

--
Alfred Molon

Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
https://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
  #8  
Old July 9th 18, 04:02 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,414
Default The new 100-400mm seems to work.

On Jul 8, 2018, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Sun, 08 Jul 2018 00:17:15 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Jul 7, 2018, John McWilliams wrote
(in article ):

On 7/7/18 PDT 6:33 PM, Savageduck wrote:
Today in the wind North of San Simeon.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-4HpnjD4/0/9f7b73b9/O/i-4HpnjD4.jpg


Processed in LR CCC; original 6000x4000 aspect ratio to 16:10 cropped to
5771x3607; local sharpening limited to subject.

ISO200; 1/1400 @ f/5.0

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-DptDNMM/0/d66445c3/O/i-DptDNMM.jpg


Processed in LR CCC; original 6000x4000 aspect ratio to 16:9 cropped to
5726x3221; local sharpening limited to subject.

ISO200; 1/1500 @ f/5.4

Oh, yes, indeed!


Thanks.

Here are two mo

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-KDb6FXK/0/e0a99e61/O/i-KDb6FXK.jpg


Processed in LR CCC; original 6000x4000 aspect ratio to 16:9 cropped to
5243x2949; local sharpening limited to subject.

ISO200; 1/500 @ f/8.0

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-VHS3kWL/0/e44ea180/O/i-VHS3kWL.jpg


Processed in LR CCC: 6000x4000, no crop. Local sharpening limited to subject.

ISO200; 1/500 @ f/8.0

I don't want to seem difficult - but I guess I am.

There was a time when, if I had submitted those images, as interesting as they were to me, you would have said harsh words to me about the fuzziness of the

image. It wouldn't have been a personal attack but a strong criticism. I am
particularly thinking of those first photographs of the Mosquito about which
your comments were perfectly justified.

What I would really like to know is a little more about the processing, particularly about the extent to which the images were
cropped and what else if anything was done in their processing. I suspect from their general lack of sharpness and their apparent noise or graininess that

they have been heavily cropped.

There is no heavy cropping. Some stuff might have been subject to Smugmug
resizing for sharing. All processing was done in LR CCC, sharpening was
localized to the subject. I did not need razor sharp wind blown wavetops. I
have added notes below each URL. However, I guess you are seeing whatever it
is you are seeing, no offense taken.

I noted from the EXIF that you were using f/8 at 1/500 with a 200 ASA.
Have you tried shots at a higher speed with a lesser f number?


Not all of them. I had Auto ISO set with base at ISO 200, MAX ISO @ 1600, min
speed set to Auto. See notes above.

Pick one, I would be more than happy to send you the RAW RAF to play with.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

  #9  
Old July 9th 18, 04:06 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,414
Default The new 100-400mm seems to work.

On Jul 8, 2018, Alfred Molon wrote
(in . com):

In , Eric Stevens
says...

On Sun, 08 Jul 2018 00:17:15 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Jul 7, 2018, John McWilliams wrote
(in article ):

On 7/7/18 PDT 6:33 PM, Savageduck wrote:
Today in the wind North of San Simeon.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-4HpnjD4/0/9f7b73b9/O/i-4HpnjD4.jpg

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-DptDNMM/0/d66445c3/O/i-DptDNMM.jpg
Oh, yes, indeed!

Thanks.

Here are two mo

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-KDb6FXK/0/e0a99e61/O/i-KDb6FXK.jpg

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-VHS3kWL/0/e44ea180/O/i-VHS3kWL.jpg


I don't want to seem difficult - but I guess I am.

There was a time when, if I had submitted those images, as interesting
as they were to me, you would have said harsh words to me about the
fuzziness of the image. It wouldn't have been a personal attack but a
strong criticism. I am particularly thinking of those first
photographs of the Mosquito about which your comments were perfectly
justified.

What I would really like to know is a little more about the
processing, particularly about the extent to which the images were
cropped and what else if anything was done in their processing. I
suspect from their general lack of sharpness and their apparent noise
or graininess that they have been heavily cropped.

I noted from the EXIF that you were using f/8 at 1/500 with a 200 ASA.
Have you tried shots at a higher speed with a lesser f number?


I was about to ask the same thing, because indeed not all images are
tack sharp.

I also shot windsurfers with the OLympus 75-300 at 300mm (same field of
view as 400mm on APS-C). This is the budget tele lens of Olympus
(inexpensive and relatively lightweight). Of the images I got many were
blurred (perhaps motion blur), a few were quite sharp.

In both cases (Fuji and Olympus) the lack of sharpness could be due to
motion blur and/or imprecise AF (camera not being able to focus
precisely fast enough) - just guessing.


The only thing I can think of was the very strong wind factor, and the
possibility that the OIS was just not able to keep up.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

  #10  
Old July 9th 18, 04:22 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,414
Default The new 100-400mm seems to work.

On Jul 8, 2018, Savageduck wrote
(in iganews.com):

On Jul 8, 2018, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Sun, 08 Jul 2018 00:17:15 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Jul 7, 2018, John McWilliams wrote
(in article ):

On 7/7/18 PDT 6:33 PM, Savageduck wrote:
Today in the wind North of San Simeon.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-4HpnjD4/0/9f7b73b9/O/i-4HpnjD4.jpg


Processed in LR CCC; original 6000x4000 aspect ratio to 16:10 cropped to 5771x3607; local sharpening limited to subject.

ISO200; 1/1400 @ f/5.0

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-DptDNMM/0/d66445c3/O/i-DptDNMM.jpg


Processed in LR CCC; original 6000x4000 aspect ratio to 16:9 cropped to 5726x3221; local sharpening limited to subject.

ISO200; 1/1500 @ f/5.4

Oh, yes, indeed!

Thanks.

Here are two mo

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-KDb6FXK/0/e0a99e61/O/i-KDb6FXK.jpg


Processed in LR CCC; original 6000x4000 aspect ratio to 16:9 cropped to 5243x2949; local sharpening limited to subject.

ISO200; 1/500 @ f/8.0

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-VHS3kWL/0/e44ea180/O/i-VHS3kWL.jpg


Processed in LR CCC: 6000x4000, no crop. Local sharpening limited to subject.

ISO200; 1/500 @ f/8.0

I don't want to seem difficult - but I guess I am.

There was a time when, if I had submitted those images, as interesting as
they were to me, you would have said harsh words to me about the fuzziness
of the image. It wouldn't have been a personal attack but a strong criticism. I am particularly thinking of those first photographs of the Mosquito about

which your comments were perfectly justified.

What I would really like to know is a little more about the processing,
particularly about the extent to which the images were
cropped and what else if anything was done in their processing. I suspect
from their general lack of sharpness and their apparent noise or graininess
that they have been heavily cropped.

There is no heavy cropping. Some stuff might have been subject to Smugmug
resizing for sharing. All processing was done in LR CCC, sharpening was
localized to the subject. I did not need razor sharp wind blown wavetops. I
have added notes below each URL. However, I guess you are seeing whatever it
is you are seeing, no offense taken.

I noted from the EXIF that you were using f/8 at 1/500 with a 200 ASA.
Have you tried shots at a higher speed with a lesser f number?


Not all of them. I had Auto ISO set with base at ISO 200, MAX ISO @ 1600, min
speed set to Auto. See notes above.

Pick one, I would be more than happy to send you the RAW RAF to play with.


BTW: This one I processed with Alien Skin Exposure X3. ISO 200, 1/1100 @
f/5.6: Sharpening was still localized to the subject, and is sharp enough
that the reinforcing pattern in the Kevlar sail is quite clear. Aspect ratio
changed to 16:9 from original 6000x4000 to 5532x3112.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-cs5phDS/0/ce74ad5f/O/i-cs5phDS.jpg

--

Regards,
Savageduck

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
PSE6: Work-around when Help doesn't work under Windows John Navas[_2_] Digital Photography 3 January 14th 08 10:04 PM
400mm IS Eric Miller Digital Photography 7 January 26th 06 12:14 AM
400mm IS Eric Miller 35mm Photo Equipment 7 January 26th 06 12:14 AM
400mm for 10D b4 Digital Photography 8 October 12th 04 01:01 AM
400mm AF-S $6,200.00 Pixuretakr 35mm Equipment for Sale 0 December 2nd 03 08:43 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.